Fall 2008 Teachers for a New Era’s
Common Entry Survey Results for the
Teacher Education Program
Reyhan Burcu Kaniskan and Mary E. Yakimowski
March 2009
The Teachers for New Era (TNE)’s Common Entry Survey was administered to incoming
students enrolled in the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education School’s
(herein, the Neag School) Teacher Education Program’s three components: the
Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s Teacher Education (IB/M) Program, Music Education
Program and Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG). This
report presents the 2008 survey results.
Introduction
The TNE’s goal is to prepare excellent teachers who are committed to enhance the learning and
opportunities of their pupils. The three design principles driving the TNE are: decisions driven
by evidence, engagement with the Arts and Sciences faculty, and teaching as an academically
taught clinical practice profession. The TNE Common Entry Survey is directly tied to the first
of the three guiding principles.
The TNE Common Entry Survey is designed to gain insight into the views, expectations, goals,
and perceptions of students toward their teacher preparation program, as well as their opinions
on a number of related topics. The Common Exit Survey, as well as the Common Entry
Survey, evolved from a request by Dan Fallon, chair of the Carnegie Corporation Education
Committee. Fallon requested that the TNE universities to work together to gather similar data
across institutions. Eleven schools 1 participate in this Carnegie initiative. In March 2005 all
universities tied to TNE suggested “common” items and scales that could appeal to all schools
in order to create the “common” entry and exit surveys. Besides common items and scales,
TNE schools could measure their own variables of interest. Input from the Common Entry
1
California State University, Northridge, Michigan State University, University of Texas at El Paso, Bank
Street College of Education, University of Washington, Boston College, Stanford University, University of
Virginia, Florida A & M University, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
1
Survey and the Common Exit Survey will be used to improve the teacher education programs
at Neag School and other TNE schools.
Method
Participants
In the summer and fall of 2008, individuals in the Teacher Preparation Program were invited to
complete the TNE Common Entry Survey. The present analysis included 77 juniors from the
IB/M program, 13 from the Music Education program, and 1 student from the TCPCG
program. Thus, the data was collected from 91 students out of 154 (61.45%) in the Teacher
Education Program.
Instrument
In the first section of the TNE Common Entry Survey were asked about their focus in the
Teacher Preparation Program, and whether they had one or more subject area specialties. The
students were asked basic demographic questions and information regarding their parents’
education as well as their background including type of school they attended, school location,
school socioeconomic status (SES), students’ race, and students’ achievement level. Students
were asked to report how prepared they felt to begin teaching, and what were their future plans
about teaching in terms of school location, SES, students’ race, and students’ achievement level.
Procedure
The TCPCG students were asked to complete a hard copy of the TNE Common Entry Survey
during orientation in June of 2008, IB/M and Music Education students were introduced to the
survey during their EPSY 221 class in September of 2008. Both groups were instructed to take
the survey online during the two weeks period after the initial launch of survey. Each group
was sent reminders.
2
Results
In this next section the results from surveys are presented in terms of students’ demographics,
goals and intentions, self-efficacy, and future teaching plans.
Student Demographics
This year, 78.90 % of the students are female and 21.11 % of them are male. With regard to the
racial/ethnic distribution of our sample, 2.20 % are African-American, 94.40 % White and 3.30
% of them identified themselves as multiple ethnicities. As indicated in Table 1, 1.11 % of the
participants reported that they were 23 years old at the time of the data collection, 1.11 %
reported they were 22 years old, 27.78 % reported they were 21 years old, 67.78 % reported
they were 20 years old, and the remaining 2.22 % reported that they were years 19-old. (please
see Table 1).
When asked about their parents’ education, 28.89 % of the students stated their mothers and
34.83% of them said their fathers have at least some type of college degree. In addition, 24.44
% of the students reported their mothers have completed a graduate school and 21.35 % of
them reported that their father completed the graduate school. However, there is some variation
in parents’ education. For example, 18.89 % of the students stated their mother earned some
high school degree whereas only 14.61 % of the fathers were reported having high school
degree (please see Table 2).
3
Table 1
Demographic Information of the Students
N
%
Gender
A
m
o
n
2
2.20
g
85
94.40
st
th
3
3.30
e
st
1
1.11
u
1
1.11
d
25
27.78
e
61
67.78
nt
2
2.22
s
in
th
English
88
97.78
e
French
1
1.11
T
Other
1
1.11
e
acher Education Program, the majority attended schools with predominantly white students of
middle socio-economic status (SES). About 35.6 % of the IB/M sample reported that they
attended an average achieving school, and another 61.1 % reported that they attended a high
achieving school. (Please see Table 3)
Female
Male
Race and/or Ethnicity
Black or African American
White or Caucasian
Multiple Ethnicity or Other
Age
23
22
21
20
19
Primary language spoken in your childhood home
71
19
78.90
21.11
Table 2
Highest Education Levels of Mothers and Fathers of the Students
N
Some high school
Completed high school
Some junior/community college
Completed junior community college
Some college
Completed college
Some graduate school
Completed graduate school
0
17
3
7
14
26
1
22
4
Mother
%
0.00
18.89
3.33
7.78
15.56
28.89
1.11
24.44
Father
N
1
13
6
7
10
31
2
19
%
1.12
14.61
6.74
7.87
11.24
34.83
2.25
21.35
Table 3
High School Type, Location, Demographics and Achievement Levels of Students
High School Type
Charter/magnet
Private (non-religious)
Private (religious or parochial)
Public
High School Location
Rural
Suburban
Urban
High School SES
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
High School Racial Composition
Primarily students of color
A mix of both students
Primarily White students
High School Achievement Level
A low achieving school
An average achieving school
A high achieving school
5
N
1
1
3
85
%
1.1
1.1
3.3
94.4
20
64
6
22.2
71.1
6.7
4
66
20
4.4
73.3
22.2
2
22
66
2.2
24.4
73.3
3
32
55
3.3
35.6
61.1
Goals/Intentions
The goals of the 2008 cohort are again similar to those of the 2007 participants. Most of the students
in the sample are intending to focus on elementary school education. Table 5 presents the
frequencies of subject specialties students are planning to specialize, with English being the more
preferred area compared to others. In addition to their teacher preparation degree in education
and some students are pursuing another major or minor degrees outside of education. (see
Table 6).
Table 4
Level of Focus in the Program *
Early childhood
Elementary school
Middle school
High school
N
%
12
54
27
45
13.3
60.0
30.0
50.0
* More than one choice was allowed.
Table 5
Subject Specialties Planned by Students *
*
Bilingual; English Language Learners; ESL
English
Foreign Language
Mathematics
Music
Science
Special Education
Social studies
Agricultural Education
Other
More than one choice was allowed.
6
N
1
25
0
18
14
10
7
18
0
1
%
1.1
27.8
0.0
20.0
15.6
11.1
7.8
20.0
0.0
1.1
Table 6
Fields for Specialties Students Outside of Education in which students plan to Major
Arts (e.g., Fine Arts, Drama, Music, Design)
Biology
Business or Professional studies (e.g., Agriculture, Architecture, Law)
Chemistry
Engineering or Computer Science
English (e.g., English Literature or Composition, Communications or
Journalism)
Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g., African-American or Latin-American Studies)
Foreign Languages
Geology or Earth Science
General Studies or Other Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g., Liberal/Family
Studies)
Mathematics (e.g., Statistics)
Other Humanities (e.g., History, Philosophy, Religious Studies)
Physics
Psychology
Social Sciences (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)
7
N
6
2
0
0
0
8
%
6.7
2.2
0
0
0
8.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
3
4.4
5.6
0
0
3.3
Table 6
Fields for Students Outside of Education in which Students Plan a Minor
Arts (e.g., Fine Arts, Drama, Music, Design)
Biology
Business or Professional studies (e.g., Agriculture, Architecture, Law)
Chemistry
Engineering or Computer Science
English (e.g., English Literature or Composition, Communications or
Journalism)
Ethnic or Global Studies (e.g., African-American or Latin-American Studies)
Foreign Languages
Geology or Earth Science
General Studies or Other Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g., Liberal/Family
Studies)
Mathematics (e.g., Statistics)
Other Humanities (e.g., History, Philosophy, Religious Studies)
Physics
Psychology
Social Sciences (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science)
N
1
0
0
0
0
3
%
1.1
0
0
0
0
3.3
0
1
0
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
5.6
4.4
Efficacy of Classroom Teaching
In an effort to measure the self-efficacy of classroom teaching, participants were asked the
following survey items with a scale from 1 to 5 (1=Not at confident, 2=Slightly confident,
3=Somewhat confident,4=Quite confident and 5=Extremely confident). The results revealed that
students on an average are somewhat confident across all the self efficacy measures (M= 3.26,
SD=0.9).
8
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Student’s Self Efficacy Measures
Provide stimulating lessons for students
Motivate students to participate in academic tasks
Change the way to present material to accommodate the learning needs of
all students
Create learning experiences that are meaningful to students
Know what procedures to follow if you believe a student has a disability
Implement a variety of teaching strategies to reach students who are not
native English speakers
Teach even the most challenging students
Effectively address classroom management issues
Get along well with students who struggle with behavioral issues in school
Facilitate learning for all of your students
Adapt curriculum to accommodate individual differences
Develop a strong rapport with your students
Teach students with different cultural backgrounds from your own
Integrate educational technology into your lessons
Effectively teach special education students
Respect cultural backgrounds different from your own
Use effective classroom assessment strategies
Use formalized assessment (i.e., CMT, CAPT, norm-referenced) results
Develop a strong rapport with parents of your students
Use computers effectively in the classroom
Help your students better learn to use technology
Know all the content that you will be required to teach to your students
Average
M
3.20
3.40
3.19
SD
0.84
0.76
0.89
3.43
2.61
2.19
0.77
1.11
0.96
2.66
3.31
3.26
3.37
3.20
3.97
3.70
3.09
2.77
4.30
3.39
2.91
3.51
3.41
3.24
3.64
3.26
0.96
0.84
0.86
0.76
0.97
0.73
0.76
0.98
1.10
0.81
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.92
1.04
0.99
0.90
Priorities Identified
Students were asked to rank the three statements based on what their most important priority is
as a teacher (1= most important priority; 3=least important priority). Motivating their students to
be engaged in school emerged to be the most important priority; in which 66.7% of them stated
motivating would be most important priority. When asked about helping students learn the
required content, participants’ responses varied. In addition, 50.0% of the participants indicated
having a positive personal relationship with their students is their most priority while the
remaining half either said it would be their least or somewhat priority. (see Table 10)
9
Table 10
Priorities identified
N
Having a positive personal relationship with your students
Helping your students learn the required content
Motivating your students to be engaged in school
Ability to establish rapport with students
Classroom management skills
Command of content knowledge
Lesson planning skills
Lesson implementation skills
10
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
45
24
20
33
32
24
60
14
15
43
25
13
6
3
10
23
32
16
9
17
26
26
13
8
11
27
18
15
18
8
23
20
20
19
%
50.0
26.7
22.2
36.7
35.6
26.7
66.7
15.6
16.7
47.8
27.8
14.4
6.7
3.3
11.1
25.6
35.6
17.8
10.0
18.9
28.9
28.9
14.4
8.9
12.2
30.0
20.0
16.7
20.0
8.9
25.6
22.2
22.2
21.1
Moreover, students were asked to rank their skills as educators (1= your strongest skills/qualities
as an educator; 5= their least strong skills/qualities as an educator). The results suggested that
47.8 % of the participants stated that ability to establish rapport with students was their strongest
skill as educators while 3.3% of them said it was their least important skill as an educator. With
respect to classroom management, the results suggested that significant number of students
indicated their skills as not strong. For example, only 11.1% of them reported that classroom
management is their strongest skill. In addition, students’ perceptions about their skills on lesson
planning are mixed. Only 12.2% of the participants stated it was their strongest skills. (see Table
10).
Future Teaching Plans
Students were also asked to describe their future teaching plans. The majority of the students
reported that they planned to teach in a suburban school with a mix of both students of color and
white students for the majority of their career. Student responses seem to follow a similar pattern
but not the same structure between what schools they would like to teach and what schools they
will actually end up teaching. It includes the desire to teach in average achieving schools. (see
Tables 14 and 15)
Table 14
Schools Students Most Like to Teach
Location
Rural
Suburban
Urban
SES
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Racial and Ethnic Composition
Primarily students of color
A mix of both students
Primarily white students
Achievement Level
A low achieving school
An average achieving school
A high achieving school
11
N
%
9
62
17
10.0
68.9
18.9
14
67
8
15.6
74.4
8.9
9
71
9
10.0
78.9
10.0
8
40
40
8.9
44.4
44.4
Table 15
School the Participants Think They Will End Up Teaching for the Majority of their Career
Location
Rural
Suburban
Urban
SES
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Racial and Ethnic Composition
Primarily students of color
A mix of both students
Primarily white students
Achievement Level
A low achieving school
An average achieving school
A high achieving school
N
%
14
56
19
15.6
62.2
21.1
16
68
5
17.8
75.6
5.6
7
53
29
7.8
58.9
32.2
12
59
18
13.3
65.6
20.0
Conclusion and Discussion
In 2008, the majority of students were females and white. The majority of the students reported
that they were 20 years old at the time of taking the survey. The majority attended public
schools. When asked about their parents’ education, almost a third stated their mothers and/or
fathers have at least some type of college degree. In general, the majority reported average scores
in self efficacy with motivation an important priority.
During the majority of their career, two-thirds s reported that they planned to teach in a suburban
school whereas only 5.6% indicated they planned to teach in high SES schools. Only 13.3 % of
the participants indicated their choice over low achieving school. With respect to the priorities
identified, classroom management, lesson planning skills, command of content knowledge and
lesson implementation skills were identified as “need” areas for improvement.
Amongst all of the measures, implementing a variety of teaching strategies to reach students who
are not native English speakers emerged as the lowest confidence rating. Also, knowing what
procedures to follow if the participants believe a student has a disability and teaching challenging
students were the other e measures that students indicated their low confidence.
As an evaluation team, we believe these results from self-efficacy of classroom teaching were
very consistent with the results from priorities identified by teachers. On the other hand, both
developing a strong rapport with their students and respecting cultural backgrounds different
12
from their own were very visible that students had on an average very high confidence. Apart
from highlighting the low and high confidence items self-efficacy of classroom teaching, as an
evaluation team we
We recommend that student information from the TNE Common Entry Survey compared from
the results obtained by the TNE Common Exit Survey. We also suggest the use of factor analytic
techniques to explore the psychometric properties of these 22 self-efficacy measure on the
survey. Further, the revision of the scale tied to background characteristics should be explored.
And finally, with the TNE merger with the Teacher Education Program, we recommend this
survey be called the Entry Survey for Teacher Education.
13